The 5DIII does improve on the banding. But from what I have seen those improvements are not substantial enough to eliminate it.

Quote

I'll just note that these are garden-variety Nikon troll tactics, whether intentional or otherwise: complain about how lousy Canon gear is, but compare two- or three-generation old Canon equipment with latest-generation Nikon equipment. And, for bonus points, compare APS-C to 135 format while you're at it. That doesn't exactly do a whole lot to your credibility, guys.

TrumpetPower, every time I call you out on this you ignore me. This is a straw man argument. Show me where I have complained about Canon gear or called it lousy. Is this really the best you can do? Sling mud at me?

Just as I would comment on jrista comparing a 7D with the D800...if I wasn't certain there's no way I could do so politely.

I'll just note that these are garden-variety Nikon troll tactics, whether intentional or otherwise: complain about how lousy Canon gear is, but compare two- or three-generation old Canon equipment with latest-generation Nikon equipment. And, for bonus points, compare APS-C to 135 format while you're at it. That doesn't exactly do a whole lot to your credibility, guys.

I challenge you to try something similar with the 5D III. The results will be nearly exactly the same. The 7D and the 5D III have almost exactly the same DR, and the 5D III has not eliminated banding noise problems. You can complain all you want about me comparing a 7D to the D800, but in terms of DR, it is not any different than comparing the 5D III to the D800. I seriously CHALLENGE you to perform the exact same test.

Either you accept my challenge, honestly, and show the world that we aren't just full of S___, and that Canon has some areas to improve upon...or you are too afraid to be proven wrong, and you'll ignore my challenge. Assuming you'll be ignoring my challenge, I'll be renting a 5D III once I receive my lens back from being repaired by Canon (should be sometime next week), and redo the test myself. This is no joke, and it is the SOLE legitimate complaint I think Canon users have regarding Canon equipment. In every other respect, it's stellar gear.

Just as I would comment on jrista comparing a 7D with the D800...if I wasn't certain there's no way I could do so politely.

I'll just note that these are garden-variety Nikon troll tactics, whether intentional or otherwise: complain about how lousy Canon gear is, but compare two- or three-generation old Canon equipment with latest-generation Nikon equipment. And, for bonus points, compare APS-C to 135 format while you're at it. That doesn't exactly do a whole lot to your credibility, guys.

I challenge you to try something similar with the 5D III. The results will be nearly exactly the same. The 7D and the 5D III have almost exactly the same DR, and the 5D III has not eliminated banding noise problems. You can complain all you want about me comparing a 7D to the D800, but in terms of DR, it is not any different than comparing the 5D III to the D800. I seriously CHALLENGE you to perform the exact same test.

Either you accept my challenge, honestly, and show the world that we aren't just full of S___, and that Canon has some areas to improve upon...or you are too afraid to be proven wrong, and you'll ignore my challenge. Assuming you'll be ignoring my challenge, I'll be renting a 5D III once I receive my lens back from being repaired by Canon (should be sometime next week), and redo the test myself. This is no joke, and it is the SOLE legitimate complaint I think Canon users have regarding Canon equipment. In every other respect, it's stellar gear.

Dude.

I've done nothing but post exactly those sorts of tests.

Hell, the most recent one I posted had the Sun in the frame.

So, by all means. Tell me I'm full of it if it'll make you feel better about your Nikon love.

With respect, you haven't proved anything. When it is shown that an argument you've made is incorrect, instead of admitting you are wrong you either ignore that point, misdirect the conversation to a different point, or resort to straw man attacks.

There hasn't been a film / sensor made in decades that can't cleanly produce significantly more dynamic range than a print.

Most photographers understand this is not true. I pointed out how this is not true and even provided the example of a print. You ignored my example for a while but then when I brought it up again and went so far as to post what the actual raw image looked like, you then claimed my example was not valid because it uses a 5DII and not a 5DIII. I then pointed out that the two cameras have essentially the same dynamic range. (I would also observe, in reference to your comment above, the 5DII does fall into the category of having been produced within the past few "decades.")

TrumpetPower, you seem to be going out of your way to be obtuse on this. Do you really not understand how dynamic range applies to photography? Are you really trying to tell us that for all these "decades" that photographers who have been using graduated neutral density filters, fill flash, etc. to compensate for dynamic range limitations have been doing so needlessly?

If you are honestly confused on this topic, then rather me explaining it to you, I will provide you with a resource which I think already does an excellent job:

For your benefit I will quote a short excerpt from that article to show it might be worth your while:

"A big source of confusion is the range of the display media, whether it's printing paper or a monitor or anything else. You'll constantly come across people saying that since a certain range is all you can display, then that's all the DR you can have, or can use, or whatever. Not so. Any subject brightness range can potentially be represented accurately and proportionately within a given display range—as long as you captured the brightness levels of the subject correctly relative to each other in the first place."

There is much more there. If you are still not clear after reading that article (and in partciular the "Output" portion of that article) then let me know.

It goes back to Art_d's question: If you are in a room that is lit only by sunlight from outside, and you look out the window...does the room suddenly become black?

Obviously the answer is no. The room looks...normal. Illuminated, colorful, even "bright"...as in the examples I posted. Our eyes are capable of seeing far more dynamic range in a scene than a camera, so...if one wishes to take a photo of such a room as the one I linked, they must either take bracketed shots and blend an HDR in post...or use something like the D800 which has more DR to start with.

I wouldn't say the room looks "surrealistic", which I believe is what you are getting at. I believe it is a bit over-saturated, but other than that I think it looks how a human standing in the room would see it...diffusely illuminated...not pitch black dark.

[snip]

[end quote]

When you look out a window onto sunny exterior, no, the interior doesn't *become* black, and it doesn't *appear* to be as dark as cameras "see" it if they're exposed for the exterior; but the interior doesn't *look* as bright as it does when you're looking directly at it either, and it certainly doesn't look *brighter* than the exterior does when it's sunny outside (unless there's an unusual level of artificial light inside). I assume that the point of the way this photo was processed was to make the exterior look as bright as it would look if you were looking through the window, and to make the interior look as bright as it would if you were looking at the darkest part of the room, simultaneously. If *that* was the point, the result strikes me as a failure: the interior is brighter, and has more saturated colors, than the exterior. (I don't much care for the intention either, but that's a purely aesthetic matter - I don't share the evidently rather common desire to shine lights onto every shadow.) The end result in the example you posted today looks much more successful to me.

This, of course, is a side issue to the general points being made re dynamic range. If you need or want more, go for it. (I think you would find that you can push shadows better with a 6D than with a 5DIII.) By the way, anyone who prefers APS-C and really likes being able to brighten shadows should check out, not Nikon (reviews suggest that their new APS-C sensors, which are no longer made by Sony, are noisier) but Pentax. I used to own a K-5, which was quite amazing in that regard, and its successors may be even better (but this comes at a price - worse lenses and less accurate focusing...).

It goes back to Art_d's question: If you are in a room that is lit only by sunlight from outside, and you look out the window...does the room suddenly become black?

Obviously the answer is no. The room looks...normal. Illuminated, colorful, even "bright"...as in the examples I posted. Our eyes are capable of seeing far more dynamic range in a scene than a camera, so...if one wishes to take a photo of such a room as the one I linked, they must either take bracketed shots and blend an HDR in post...or use something like the D800 which has more DR to start with.

I wouldn't say the room looks "surrealistic", which I believe is what you are getting at. I believe it is a bit over-saturated, but other than that I think it looks how a human standing in the room would see it...diffusely illuminated...not pitch black dark.

[snip]

[end quote]

When you look out a window onto sunny exterior, no, the interior doesn't *become* black, and it doesn't *appear* to be as dark as cameras "see" it if they're exposed for the exterior; but the interior doesn't *look* as bright as it does when you're looking directly at it either, and it certainly doesn't look *brighter* than the exterior does when it's sunny outside (unless there's an unusual level of artificial light inside). I assume that the point of the way this photo was processed was to make the exterior look as bright as it would look if you were looking through the window, and to make the interior look as bright as it would if you were looking at the darkest part of the room, simultaneously. If *that* was the point, the result strikes me as a failure: the interior is brighter, and has more saturated colors, than the exterior. (I don't much care for the intention either, but that's a purely aesthetic matter - I don't share the evidently rather common desire to shine lights onto every shadow.) The end result in the example you posted today looks much more successful to me.

Well, I'm not sure I've ever experienced what you stated, that looking outside the window makes the interior darker. I'm looking outside the same windows I photographed, and there is no darkening of the interior. The interior is lit by diffuse bounce from those very windows themselves...the lighting is fixed, and what I see remains fixed as well, whether I'm looking at a wall or looking out the window. I've never seen the "bloom" effect when looking out a window, however I have experienced something like that when I go outside into the bright sun for a while...which forces my irises to contract. Going back inside after THAT results in a slightly darker interior for a minute or two, after which it normalizes again.

The end result was an HDR image that had the full 18 stops of dynamic range. I had to spend about 15 minutes tweaking and tonemapping to get it to look that good in the first place, and it doesn't look great...there are definite and visible problems. The D800 probably wouldn't do quite as well on the DR front...but it would do nearly as well, and much better than any Canon camera could currently do. The shadows, and my black leather couch, would just have more random luma noise with the D800. Regardless, the point is, using a camera with more dynamic range means you can get good or better results with less work. That's kind of what it's all about.

This, of course, is a side issue to the general points being made re dynamic range. If you need or want more, go for it. (I think you would find that you can push shadows better with a 6D than with a 5DIII.) By the way, anyone who prefers APS-C and really likes being able to brighten shadows should check out, not Nikon (reviews suggest that their new APS-C sensors, which are no longer made by Sony, are noisier) but Pentax. I used to own a K-5, which was quite amazing in that regard, and its successors may be even better (but this comes at a price - worse lenses and less accurate focusing...).

Well, I use APS-C for reach when photographing birds. But to photograph birds, you are rarely ever below ISO 400. Any DR benefits you get at low ISO are usually gone or mostly gone by ISO 400, and entirely gone by 800. Canon read noise is actually better at higher ISO than the competition (until you get into the top one or two stops usually, then it just falls off a cliff like every other brand.) My 7D performs well enough for what I do now, and since I'm always at high ISO any potential gains by moving to any other brand are so marginal as to be meaningless.

I want more DR for my landscape photography. In the past, when I did landscapes much more, I frequently ran into the problem of too much DR in the scene. I often clipped highlights or blocked shadows, and was unable to lift the shadows due to noise. I'm sure a 5D III will do much better than any of my previous cameras, but I'm still going to see if Canon has something up their sleeve in the big mp camera that will improve their DR. There was a rumor a while back about them moving to 16 bit, which I can't imagine them doing unless they managed to improve their read noise. There were also rumors about them using some kind of active cooling, which if they cool their electronics enough, could have a fairly significant impact on reducing read noise.

Yes, there is a huge limitation with respect to dynamic range and photography. Absolutely monstrous.

But the cameras aren't the problem.

The elephant in the room, the one that nobody ever seems to want to talk about, is the print.

There hasn't been a film / sensor made in decades that can't cleanly produce significantly more dynamic range than a print.

You called it the "elephant in the room." You said "the cameras aren't the problem." You were basically trying to make the claim that more dynamic range in cameras doesn't matter because cameras already have more dynamic range than prints. Read the below again please. It explains why you are wrong. It tells you why cameras are the problem.

"A big source of confusion is the range of the display media, whether it's printing paper or a monitor or anything else. You'll constantly come across people saying that since a certain range is all you can display, then that's all the DR you can have, or can use, or whatever. Not so. Any subject brightness range can potentially be represented accurately and proportionately within a given display range—as long as you captured the brightness levels of the subject correctly relative to each other in the first place."

If you were to provide just a weeee bit more context from that very same post, you might discover that I make the exact same point as the online source you found.

So what's yours? Point, I mean.

b&

That you are arguing AGAINST the value of using a camera with more DR. You've been arguing against it from the get-go, stating that you don't even need all the DR the 5D III has, let alone the D800. The only way we could interpret the print comment was that you were just making another argument against more DR, stating that since print has so little DR, having more couldn't possibly be valuable, because all the "extra" DR would just fall into "Zone 0-1", and thus just be "solid blacks".

You seem to be ignoring the fact that you can compress dynamic range. If your camera has 14 stops, you can compress those 14 into the 8 stops of a computer screen, or even the 5 stops of a print. All it takes is a little tonemapping, assuming you have the DR to start with.

long story shortnice that you have seen what I have tried to explain about read noise and banding since I started as a member here

Not really. My problem with you in the past has been that you have tried to make it sound as though Canon cameras are incapable of taking good photographs, period. My scene had EIGHTEEN STOPS of DR (at least). The D800 will fare better than the 5D III, but even the mighty Exmor will still fall short by four stops in that situation. You'll still have noise...the benefit of Exmor is that it won't be banded noise. As I've always stated in the past...that IS an EXTREME situation, and purposely puts Canon in the worst possible light (no pun intended). You've always made it sound as though Canon sucks donkey danglers, is incapable of producing a good camera, hell you (and Mikael and TheSuede) have even claimed they are incapable of innovating new technology and are literally incapable of producing a better sensor. I dispute those notions. Exmor is an advancement, no doubt about it. It doesn't instantly invalidate every previous sensor design and suddenly make them take crappy photos 100% of the time.

If you had provided a balanced argument in the past, I wouldn't have argued with you. But just like Trumpet, you have provided skewed arguments, straw men, etc., or refuse to accept the facts or prove your case with physical evidence. In the case of Mikael, I believe he frequently posted examples that were unequally weighted against Canon (a 1D X example comes to mind that appeared more underexposed than a D800 shot), and when I demanded actual RAW files, he refused to produce them. That made me even more suspicious, and gave me all the more reason to push harder for the truth. I'll debate the points with anyone who doesn't present a balanced argument or tries to obfuscate the facts. Yes, Canon has some nasty read noise. Read my posts here on CR, you'll see I've never denied that (although I will admit I had very high hopes for the 5D III at its release, and wasn't willing to accept the fact that its DR hadn't changed a bit in a generation until the evidence was too much to deny). However it DOES take an extreme scene with lots of DR to make that actually present as a problem...it does not occur in every single shot, which has been indicated in the past...particularly by Mikael.

There is a balanced argument here, somewhere. I just wish people would make it.

DR is good. There is nothing wrong with having more. More DR is always usable. In certain types of photography, having as much DR as you can get your hands on is critical. Shadow recovery with two extra stops of DR can be amazing, and in the case of Exmor is banding free.

Conversely DR is not the end-all, be-all for every kind of photography. Additional DR, in the case of 14-bit ADC, can only be had at the lowest ISO settings. At higher ISO SNR is the far more relevant factor, and currently Canon stands as the king of high ISO. Sensor IQ is also not the final factor in IQ, AF systems, frame rate, lens quality, etc. are just as important, and for many types of photography, more important than the sensor.

There are pros and cons to everything. Trumpet is arguing there is no value whatsoever to having more DR (probably because of the application of the Zone system, which I believe is invalidated by modern technology, and is skewing his understanding). Ankorwatt and Mikael (assuming they are actually different people) have argued that DR is the only thing that matters and everything else is moot if you don't have more DR.

Neither of those are true, and it really depends on the kind of photography whether more DR matters or not. For most of what I do, I use ISO 100 so rarely that it doesn't matter a wit. I am rarely below ISO 800. Right now, the best cameras I could get my hands on are the 5D III and 1D X, as both offer the cleanest high ISO I've ever seen (particularly the 1D X...I've seen ISO 51200 shots that floor me.) In the case of Art_d's work, it's clear that more DR can be a very valuable thing in a pinch. For pretty much every landscape photographer on earth, more DR will still not be enough, and I am sure people will still be using GND filters when we finally have cameras with 16 stops of DR.

long story shortnice that you have seen what I have tried to explain about read noise and banding since I started as a member here

Not really.......................................................

No one (at least, no one with a shred of objectivity) has denied that Sony/Nikon sensors have more DR than Canon sensors. But jrista is correct - the suggestion that DR at low ISO is the be-all-end-all of what matters for camera performance - for every photographer - is ludicrous and absurd. Yet...that is exactly how the repeated Mikael/ankorwatt/etc. posts came off. That was the problem with the former persona, and I sincerely hope we don't go down that road again.